Honourable Ross Landry Nova Scotia Minister of Justice 5151 Terminal Road Halifax, Nova Scotia Subject: The

case of Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh

25.05.2013

Dear Minister Landry I know that you are familiar with the subject case; it maybe however that you are not aware of the many very important details which have not been reported in the media. For this reason I have compiled a few excerpts (attached) from the unanimous decision of the Nova Scotia Appeal Court. You are aware of course that the Nova Scotia Appeal Court decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada by your prosecutors, and that their appeal was dismissed with a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I have also compiled (attached) a few relevant excerpts from the decision of Chief Justice Kennedy. As background to this letter, please understand that I have always maintained innocence of these charges; that with my legal team (and with a private investigation firm) we undertook a vigorous defence which resulted in a unanimous decision of the Nova Scotia Appeal Court which vindicated my position. The Appeal Court seriously questioned the credibility and collusion of the complainants (which the trial judge had ignored) and stayed all of the charges. NSCA decision Page 48 (137 &
139) & page 63 (178 & 179)

The Appeal Court ruled that the trial Judge erred in a number of respects; in failing to address the issues of collusion, and to properly deal with significant problems of credibility; and that the trial judges reasoning revealed serious misapprehensions of important evidence that was material to the convictions. NSAC decision page 4 (7), page 54 (153), page 57 (161)
& page 63 (179)

The Appeal Court ruled that even if the charges were not stayed by the delay issues, the convictions could not stand. Justice Beverage wrote I would vacate all of the convictions entered by Kennedy C.J.N.S. and MacDonald J. and enter a stay on all charges. NSAC decision
page 46 (131 & 133) & page 37/38 (107)

The Appeal Court referred to evidence wherein the allegations of the complainants changed over time and specifically referred to the evidence of the main complainant who on many occasions demonstrated, beyond doubt, that his testimony was not credible. NSAC
decision page 27 (82), page 58 (166), page 59 (169 & 170)

The Appeal Court particularly emphasized the allegations regarding DRS testimony that he was sexually assaulted on half a dozen occasions in the basement TV room of his family home, when he was a child. DRS even brought the RCMP to his family home to make a video
1

record of the basement, while he described the alleged assaults in vivid detail. NSAC
decision Page 59 (171), page 61 (173, 174, 175)

Subsequently, evidence (by DRS father) at the preliminary hearing confirmed our finding that the basement and the TV room did not even exist until 1981 (six years after the timeline of charges) when DRS was twenty years old. The Appeal Court wrote that the trial Judge failed to direct himself to a lie by the witness which would taint his entire evidence. The Appeal Court ruled that in his testimony DRS deliberately lied, demonstrated a marked disregard for the truth, or was patently unreliable. NSAC decision Page 61 (175) & page 62 (176) DRS also made a complaint of rape; and during the preliminary hearing he described (under oath) the alleged anal intercourse in scurrilous detail. However during the trial he admitted that it never happened. Another complainant, JH (who is a cousin of DRS) also admitted under oath that he lied to the RCMP about being sexually assaulted in Port Hawkesbury. The trial judge ignored that important fact and entered a conviction. The conviction however was also overturned by the Appeal Court. It should be noted that your prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, the entire decision of the Appeal Court of Nova Scotia, including the finding of collusion, the finding of unreliable testimony of the complainants, and the finding of misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge. It should be emphasized that the entire appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Unfortunately, in their reporting of the case, the media organizations refer only to the issues of delay (which are significant and extremely prejudicial) however the other issues such as collusion among the complainants, credibility of the complainants, and misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, are equally significant and prejudicial, albeit ignored by the media. It should also be noted that Justice Kennedy C.J.N.S ruled regarding complainant WR that I do not consider that he was a child at that time. Kennedy decision page 35 (1-2) Regarding complainant RM, The Chief Justice ruled he was not a child at that time, he was a young man. Kennedy decision page 51 (15) Regarding complainants DRS and JH, Justice Kennedy ruled they were young men. Kennedy
decision page 59 (10 15)

Despite these judicial rulings, your prosecutors (and the media organizations) consistently referred to the complainants as children, even in arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I recently read media reports of Premier Dexter complaining that the Supreme Court of Canada decision was disappointing. Perhaps he did not take time to brief himself on details of the case before making such an unjust statement; however I hope that your department of Justice does not support the Premiers opinion. I also read media reports suggesting that your department may initiate an inquiry into the delay issues of this case. I would welcome an inquiry, but I would expect any inquiry to focus on all aspects of the case, particularly the collusion among the complainants, the blatant misrepresentation of the truth by the complainants, the deliberate lying by at least two of the complainants, and the sloppy misrepresentation of evidence by the trial judge, as well as delay issues. Regarding complainant DRS, I believe (in light of the Nova Scotia Appeal Court ruling that he deliberately lied) that he should be charged with perjury, with misleading a police investigation, with mischief, and with any other relevant charges. Similar actions should be taken against JH. I suffered immensely because of those false allegations. I lost my job as Vice President of a multinational telecom equipment manufacturer. I lost all my belongings which I took to India as well as those items which I accumulated during fourteen years living there, including furniture, household effects, a car, a pick-up truck, and an SUV. My flat was ransacked by the Indian Police, my computers seized and searched, and my personal files were seized and lost forever. I was incarcerated for two months in the notorious Tihar Prison; I slept on a dirty cement floor among vermin, reptiles, and notoriously dangerous criminals. I was incarcerated in Nova Scotia for an additional seventeen months, much of that time in solitary confinement, and at other times forced to sleep on the floor of a one bunk cell, inches from the open toilet. I was detained on house arrest for an additional three and a half years. I was severely beaten (twice) by other inmates during the time of my incarceration. I was evicted from my apartment while on house arrest because of the 24 x 7 disturbances caused by police visits. I was refused car service by a local service centre because of the adverse publicity generated by dozens of media organizations. My life was threatened several times, once by a complainant nothing was done about it another time via face book, and several times by inmates. I suffered financially; my bank accounts were frozen by the Court and I was ordered to transfer all my foreign money and investments to Canada, at a severe loss of foreign exchange and transfer rates, and by premature selling of bonds and closing of term deposits.
3

My entire life savings were eventually depleted by legal fees and other costs, leaving me to survive on a meagre pension. I am a Leukaemia patient (diagnosed in 1991) and I suffered medically because of lack of proper medical treatment and a proper diet while in jail, even though I provided the facility with letters from two doctors who recommended a vegetarian diet. During that time my white blood count increased from about 30,000 to 90,000 (normal is about 7000). Fortunately it is now receding, gradually. I also suffered psychologically. Now at the age of (almost) seventy, I am discernibly aware that the wasted years caused in part by these false allegations cannot be recovered, nor can the prejudices and reams of negative publicity be erased. Seven Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada (one after another) castigated your prosecutors for the positions expressed by them in the appeal of the Nova Scotia Appeal Court decision. Since then I read a media commentary questioning why the Supreme Court of Canada even agreed to hear the appeal. I believe the Supreme Court of Canada answered that question with their scathing rebuke of the Nova Scotia Justice system. Surely Minister Landry, after all this, your department of Justice will heed the severe rebuke of the seven Justices and (whether or not there is a public inquiry) will undertake an appropriate follow-up. In my opinion, a positive first step would be to investigate and file charges against those complainants who were castigated by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Sincerely E F MacIntosh